Infineon To Pay $160 Million For Fixing RAM Prices

Sweet. by rincebrain · 2004-09-15 09:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Does that mean I can upgrade my RAM for less than the cost of a new processor now?

I mean, seriously. The prices were ludicrous for high-end manufacturers, and the low-end can sometimes die, and you have no recourse.

Huzzah!

--
It's only an insult if it's not true.

Re:Sweet. by Jason1729 · 2004-09-15 09:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Compare the transisitor count in a 256 meg DIMM to a CPU. That's 2 gigabits and a minimum of 1 transistor per bit, so at least 2 billion transistors. Intel and AMD barely have over 100 million in their newest CPUs, so the memory has 20 times the transistor count.

A lot more engineering goes into a CPU, but the price of memory compared to a CPU isn't really that surprising.

A lot of the microcontrollers I work with are basically a tiny sliver of processor on the edge of a large field of memory.

Jason
ProfQuotes
Re:Sweet. by Kogase · 2004-09-15 09:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

But aren't the transistors on a CPU considerably smaller? And don't CPU production facilities cost consiberably more than those for RAM chips? Notice the "don't" and the question marks.
Re:Sweet. by Jason1729 · 2004-09-15 09:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know, but comparing the die size of the CPU to the area taken up by the chips on the memory module, it 'looks' like the memory is at least as dense as the CPU.

I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that a memory fab plant costs more to produce than a CPU plant, but the memory plant will produce far more chips over its lifetime.

Jason
ProfQuotes
Re:Sweet. by ZorinLynx · 2004-09-15 09:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've always wondered why they can't manufacture DRAM chips with spare memory cells, the same way that hard drives get spare sectors. Then rather than tossing out chips for as little as one bad bit, they can remap the bad bits to the spare cells and still use the chip.

Yields would go up, prices would go down.

I can't be the only person to have thought of this; why isn't it done?

-Z
Re:Sweet. by Jason1729 · 2004-09-15 09:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

My guess is you'd need some non-volitile storage to keep track of the bad bits and the mappings. A little non-volitile memory will more than double the cost of the chip and the remapping will slow the memory down to much.
Re:Sweet. by LionMage · 2004-09-15 09:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I recognize that the RAM is, if not the, then one of the most intricate and cost-intensive parts to produce and to purchase.

Well, I can't speak to the cost-intensive part of your assertion, since I am not privy to some details about the economics of chip production. But intricate? Not hardly. DRAM and SRAM chips are laid out mostly in a grid, with very little real-estate set aside for control logic. The only complexity is the control logic; the rest of the chip is just a matrix of transistors (and, in the case of DRAM, one capacitor per transistor to actually store the bit).

RAM chips are pretty easy to design and lay out because of the inherent regularity in their structure.
Re:Sweet. by mobby_6kl · 2004-09-15 09:45 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm not sure if they currently do this, but they (and the CPU guys) do something similar for speed: if this module can't do stable 533, rate it at 400, if it can't do 400, rate it at 333 but just sell it.
Re:Sweet. by ackthpt · 2004-09-15 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I mean, seriously. The prices were ludicrous for high-end manufacturers, and the low-end can sometimes die, and you have no recourse.
Meanwhile the price of petroleum continues to drop, yet we're still shelling for $2/gal. (yeah, I know it's cheaper than in Europe, but you pay more taxes on it than we do.) Heck, with all the oil execs in Washington DC, in the government, it's small wonder nobody investigates price fixing of that commodity, heck, how could they run a re-election campaign if they found what pretty much everyone should know - they are a cartel and they run the government. Infineon's error was not getting their own people into high office.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Sweet. by ranolen · 2004-09-15 10:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Does that mean I can upgrade my RAM for less than the cost of a new processor now?
Nope, now infinion will have to make their money back that they have just lost, so expect a sharp rise in the price.
Re:Sweet. by Euler · 2004-09-15 10:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

exactly. There is a matrix of capacitors with only drive cicuits (transistors) at the end of the rows and columns. That is basically why computer designs always go with the relatively slow DRAM for mass memory due to its compact and economical nature. If you are designing a system that needs speed (like a cache or video device) you will always go with SRAM. But exect to pay _hundreds_ of times more per MB, and expect to have a way more physical address lines to contend with.

Also, answering some of the other posts above, DRAM with bad cells will get downgraded by chopping off rows containing bad cells. So you might take a 32Mx32 chip and make it 32Mx16. Depending on the nature of the defects, the chip might be downgraded for non-critical use in things like digital answering machines which can tolerate a few bad bits in the data stream. I dont think downgrading the speed helps much though as far as bad individual bits.
Re:Sweet. by captaincucumber · 2004-09-15 11:00 · Score: 2, Informative

They're not any smaller. Also, it's not just a transistor per bit, it's a transistor and a capacitor.
Re:Sweet. by corngrower · 2004-09-15 11:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

While the digital logic is straightforward and easy, the actual design of a RAM chip is not. The engineers are effectively dealing with analog circuitry when designing these chips. The design of each memory cell is critical, as they need to be as small as possible. It takes a lot of experimentation and knowledge of semiconductor physics to design these things. These guys are definitely not slackers, they're the cream of the crop. The company's future depends critically on their knowledge and intelligence. If they can't devise ways of making the cells smaller, the chip becomes larger, the yields fall, forcing the company to charge higher prices for the memory. The company may quickly loose a competitive advantage and a downward spiral begins for the company. Engineers that design digital logic are much easier to find than those that understand the semiconductor physics and manufacturing processes well enough to design the circuit layouts of ram chip.
Re:Sweet. by LionMage · 2004-09-15 11:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

While everything you say may be true, my objection was to the use of the term "intricate" to describe RAM chip design. The layout isn't intricate at all. It is a highly regular structure. Not convoluted. Not intricate.

To bolster my point, let's look at the definition of the word intricate: "1. Having many complexly arranged elements; elaborate. 2. Solvable or comprehensible only with painstaking effort. Complex."

The physical structure does not satisfy the definition of "intricate." The complexity of RAM development stems from the inherent problems of solid-state physics that must be gotten around to pack the bits ever more densely. The economic drive to be competitive forces innovations in increasing bit density, but once the design work is done and the production process has been tweaked... that's it. The end result might be a marvel of engineering, but it's not intricate as the word is defined, sorry. Maybe the engineering process could be described as intricate (though I would consider this a stretch), but not the end result.
Re:Sweet. by Maserati · 2004-09-15 12:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're damn right they do this. And some systems (Macs) are *very* finicky about their RAM. An 'underclocked' DIMM may technically meet the electrical specifications for what they're selling it as, but still not meet the system's standards.

I've only found one manufacturer to never sell me an underclocked chip: Kensington. Of course, I suspect they sell their underclocked chips to other vendors as an OEM, but I can still trust the Kingston label. Others may be as good, but I haven't tried 'em all and Kingston has been reliable for 5 years.

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Re:Sweet. by mkldev · 2004-09-15 14:27 · Score: 2, Informative

I've used a lot of generic RAM in Macs---a bunch of 61/71/8100 machines, a 7600, a beige G3, a Pismo, a white iBook, a G4/450, and a DP G5 2GHz. In all that time, I've only had one single failure and that was because the chip turned out to be non-compliant with the JEDEC specifications. (It was at a higher density than the specification allowed. It didn't work in my Athlon machine, either, yet the vendor tested it and claimed that it worked.)
That's not saying that your mileage won't vary, but generally if a RAM vendor says "check compatibility", it's non-compliant garbage and should not be put into any machine at any cost. Anything else should generally work in just about any hardware you might use.
Just MHO.

--
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.

The $160 million dollar tax question... by garcia · 2004-09-15 09:01 · Score: 5, Funny

The real question is do they get to give away a bunch of 256k chips to schools as a tax credit?

Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... by Nos. · 2004-09-15 09:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hopefully not, even though another company was allowed to do something similar
Since sending out a cheque to every buyer affected would be next to impossible, they should have to sell their chips below (or at) cost until the fine is made up. That way, those who were harmed would have a chance to recoup some loss.
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... by cmstremi · 2004-09-15 09:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

But those that were harmed already have the memory they needed. All the discount RAM in the world isn't going to be a remedy to everyone - only those who need more memory.
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... by Martin+Blank · 2004-09-15 09:37 · Score: 5, Informative

It's a fine, not a settlement. They're expected to cut a check for the amount to the government, not reimburse consumers.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... by Casca · 2004-09-15 09:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh yeah, that would be a great idea, let them dump to gain market share. Too bad for their competitors.

--
Casca
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... by xsupergr0verx · 2004-09-15 10:29 · Score: 3, Funny

As if there's anyone who doesn't need more memory.

Of course they don't. 640k should be enough for anybody.

--

Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
Re:The $160 million dollar tax question... by illumin8 · 2004-09-15 23:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a fine, not a settlement. They're expected to cut a check for the amount to the government, not reimburse consumers.

Do you realize how messed up our anti-trust system is? So, Infineon engaged in price-fixing, and gouged the consumers for more money. Now, the government says "pay up", and Infineon just has to raise prices in order to cover this $160 million loss. In both cases the consumer got shafted. Once by the company, and the second time by the government. These settlements should go directly to the people that bought systems during the time period that price fixing was occurring.

--
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

Odd Concept by Timber_Z · 2004-09-15 09:01 · Score: 5, Funny

I recall that things got pretty bad for awhile, but I still have a hard time with the concept of price fixing, when I clearly remember paying $150 for 8MB of ram, and how good of a deal that was.

Re:Odd Concept by HBI · 2004-09-15 09:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember paying $450 for an entire XT compatible with 640mb of RAM. The price without RAM was $200.

It was well over $1000 a meg at one point. The price of RAM has been dropping over the years though. In the early days (70's) you could spend that much on 64k of Static RAM.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Odd Concept by arose · 2004-09-15 09:52 · Score: 2, Funny

640 milibits?

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Odd Concept by HBI · 2004-09-15 09:55 · Score: 2

kb, sorry. Out of practice with that, certainly.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Odd Concept by arose · 2004-09-15 10:25 · Score: 2, Funny

kilobits? :-D

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.

And just how do I benefit? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2004-09-15 09:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

And just how do I benefit?

It's not like I expect them to send me a check in the mail. And if they did, it would cost me more in time and effort to collect it than it's value.

The lawyers should have to be paid just like everyone else that sees any part of this settlement.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:And just how do I benefit? by xsupergr0verx · 2004-09-15 09:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe it's like the RIAA settlement.

Each lawyer gets a new yacht, and we get a check for $4 in the mail.

--

Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
Re:And just how do I benefit? by gl4ss · 2004-09-15 09:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

there's added incintive for the companies to NOT DO THIS SORT OF THING now, the society as a whole benefits and that is how you get the benefit.

that's the whole point of those fines, you make the RISK of running such price fixing schemes too high that they don't want to take it.

like the fairly recent cartel busts in metal and paper industries(northern+mid europe)... you don't directly get anything but by punishing with hefty fines (also in the 100m+ range)they send a message that "don't fucking do this".

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:And just how do I benefit? by strictfoo · 2004-09-15 09:28 · Score: 4, Funny

there's added incintive for the companies to NOT DO THIS SORT OF THING now, the society as a whole benefits and that is how you get the benefit.

Yes, these wonderful lawyers who are doing this for the little people like you and me. The fact that they're making millions of dollars is inconsequential to them.

I mean, look at the music industry! They've definitely changed their ways now that 20 different lawyer firms have made millions off of them and we've all gotten $2.85 checks in the mail.

--
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
Re:And just how do I benefit? by geeklawyer · 2004-09-15 09:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Each lawyer gets a new yacht, and we get a check for $4 in the mail.
I must be missing the joke. Why is it bad I get a yacht?

--
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
Re:And just how do I benefit? by Billy+the+Mountain · 2004-09-15 09:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, these wonderful lawyers who are doing this for the little people like you and me.

Actually, yes. Imagine that, a lawyer can right a social wrong AND get paid well at the same time. Sounds like a noble profession.

Disclaimer: IANAL

BTM

--
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.

Now thats fair. by DAldredge · 2004-09-15 09:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

A local family man is facing 20+ years in prision for walking into the vault at the back where he worked and taking 100,000 USD.

Why do large corps get away with crap like this, hell the goverment doesn't even go after those whitecollar criminals that skip bail...

But, normal crimes they come down hard on.

Re:Now thats fair. by slashjames · 2004-09-15 09:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

It all comes down to keeping control of the country/society. There is more "common" crime than "white collar" crime; therefore you punish the common criminals more severly to keep the commoners in line, and make a show out of punishing the white collar criminals. Always bear in mind there are a LOT more people who make $100k.
Re:Now thats fair. by lothar97 · 2004-09-15 09:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

What's even more aggrevating is that these companies, once they pay for the mistakes in some manner (such as a fine), they are free to function as if nothing went wrong.
A perfect example is MCI/Worldcom. After imploding under massive amounts of fraud, screwing tons of people out of investments, employment, 401ks, etc, the company gets to "re-organize," pay a fine, then get government contracts. I bet if I'm punished for fraud, I would be shunned for life in any type of business setting.
This corporate crime problem will continue as long as it can be solved by fines, admitting no wrongdoing, and the limited minor punishments for those involved. I imagine if we held these people personally liable for all damage, put the company under 5-10 years probation, and made sure large jail sentances were required, we'd see a lot less of this trickery.
Then again, we don't want to hurt the innocent employess, and we don't want excessive government regulation.

--
Re:Now thats fair. by raygundan · 2004-09-15 09:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree with you. If they managed to find enough evidence to prove there was collusion, then surely they have enough information to point out the names of at least some of the people involved in the price fixing. These people should all be punished under normal theft laws for taking the money.

Your pick:

1. One huge count of stealing millions as if it were from a federal bank.

2. Hundreds of thousands of smaller counts of stealing from the individuals and companies who paid higher prices for their RAM.

The punishment should include immediate repayment of the amount they gained through price-fixing, and whatever additional jailtime and fines are associated with theft of that magnitude (or quantity). Only when the *people* who run corporations are subject to the penalties for their illegal actions will this crap stop.

It strikes me as an odd side effect of "corporate personhood" that the crime belongs to the company, and the individuals are not punished-- yet we have no comparable punishments for a company. We can't put a corp in jail for 20 years, and we can't give it the death penalty for awful crimes. So everything is just a fine... and companies treat it as "cost of doing business," just like you and I paying speeding tickets.
Re:Now thats fair. by Daniel · 2004-09-15 09:35 · Score: 5, Informative

My dictionary (written circa 1911) says:

CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

Does that answer the question?

Daniel

--
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Re:Now thats fair. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2004-09-15 09:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

We can't put a corp in jail for 20 years, and we can't give it the death penalty for awful crimes.

Actually we could- we just don't because we don't have any politicians left to write the laws to do so, just corporate puppets.

How to put a corporation in jail for 20 years: take away it's bank accounts for 20 years and give the interest to the victims.

How to give a corporation the death penalty: Let the government confiscate it and start competing with other businesses in that industry.

Bet if you had those two punishments instead of the fines, the corporations would shape right up.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Now thats fair. by chancycat · 2004-09-15 10:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Or for that matter, execute convicted perpetrators of fraud, as China does and did recently for four cases of bank faud. Note I do not support capital punishment, and China's examples put the topic into a perspective I've never encountered before: "a 'kill fewer, kill carefully' policy for nonviolent crimes."

--
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Re:Now thats fair. by AuMatar · 2004-09-15 10:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hear hear!

The CEO of Infineon obviously knew they were price fixing. There's no reason that he should be allowed to get away with it. There ought to be a chunk of that fine coming from HIS pocket, and a nice long stay in club fed afterwards. As it is now, there's no incentives for the CEOs not to break the law- if they don't get caught, they make tons of money, if they do, the corporation pays the fine and they've STILL made money.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Now thats fair. by killjoe · 2004-09-15 10:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Then again, we don't want to hurt the innocent employess, and we don't want excessive government regulation."

Punishing the guilty should not be seen as excessive govt regulation. The solution is simple. Dissolve the corporation and confiscate all the assets.

It's imperitive that the shareholders get screwed in the worse possible way possible. It was their job to make sure their company was run responsibly and it's their fault that the company committed crimes.

Once the assets get liquidated the money should be given as severence pay to all the employees starting at the bottom and working your way to the top until the money runs out.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Now thats fair. by DAldredge · 2004-09-15 14:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, the devils dictionary, I love it.

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict3&Database=d evils
Re:Now thats fair. by DAldredge · 2004-09-15 15:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

MCI/Worldcom came out in a BETTER position as they where about to right of large portions of their debt during the bankrupcy. Now they have much less debt than most of the companies they compete with.

IOW, cheating pays.
Re:Now thats fair. by Fjandr · 2004-09-15 18:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm all for dissolution for corporate crimes. Corporations owe their existence to the state they are incorporated in. If they violate their charter, they should be dissolved.

Oh well by JLSigman · 2004-09-15 09:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Guess we won't be getting our $13.50 checks. :-p

--
-jls
Techno-pagan

Free market isn't perfect by revscat · 2004-09-15 09:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Cases like this remind me why I don't think the libertarian philosophy towards free markets is all that realistic. Many libertarians believe that things such as this should be left to the marketplace to settle, and that government "interference" like this ultimately harms the market. I emphatically disagree. There are inherent flaws with the free market that the justice system can and should remedy so that the overall market is healthier thereby. Collusion does no one -- consumers, industries, or the economy as a whole -- any favors, and I fail to see how letting the market handle it would do anything but unfairly fatten the pockets of those who benefit.

Re:Free market isn't perfect by Jahf · 2004-09-15 09:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're right in the "many libertarians" statement, but that doesn't mean it is a clear majority. Unfortunately for Libs (like me) there are really 2 Lib groups within the party. Right/Conservative and Left/Liberal.

The Liberal side would be more in favor of government taking care of business like this but trying for the most part to stay out of other places like social laws (most especially privacy). The Conservative side is more set on seeing government stay out of business entirely as well as the social aspects.

I'm primarily a Libertarian Left because I'm more moderate on business than a Democrat, but far more liberal on social issues than a Republican, and I think both parties have sold out when it comes to privacy. However in this case I think the matter was solved properly.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:Free market isn't perfect by doc+modulo · 2004-09-15 09:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the age of the industrial revolution, it was free market all the way. It turned out to be a reall hell for the employees. Near-slavery situations.

In the end, the manufacturers failed as well, because they gave so little money to their employees and other population groups, that no one could affort their products anymore.

People have to abide by rules, and so do companies/corporations. corporations try to be an "individual" anyway, so they should accept the responsibilities that come with it.

Limitations on what powerful entities can do to the rest of the population is good for the population. In the end it's also good for the powerful because rules make sure that no one can leech the population dry with cartels and monopolies and people will be able to afford the products and services.

--
- -- Truth addict for life.
Re:Free market isn't perfect by lightknight · 2004-09-15 12:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

It cares ONLY about liberty, but cares squat for justice or democracy.

Justice? I do not believe there is any law or right whereby a supplier is required to sell something to you, at any price.

And if prices were raised via collusion after I got into that market? What then? Screw it, change businesses?

Yeah, it happens. Even in our society. Deal. Alternatively, you could expand your business so that it encompasses RAM production. Or you could wait for someone else, not affiliated with the cartel, to jump in (high profit margins/limited demand tend to have that effect).

Should I suffer financial pains because of the collusion of suppliers?

No, you should suffer financial pains if you are unable to overcome challenges that are thrown at you, like any business owner. If you fail, you fail. Deal, like everyone else.

Now, someone will eventually cite IP as a problem. Whine, whine, bluster, but they have IP and I can't make those chips. Well, if they are unwilling to license their IP, fight back. File for some offensive patents: pidgeon hole them. Make it so that they cannot advance their tech, or even sell it, without working out a deal with you.

You sound like a union worker: you've blocked yourself inside a box, and are unwilling to consider the alternatives. "I make computers, that's all I want to do, and if someone won't sell me their components, I can't do anything to help my poor self, but whine about social justice and ?democracy?".

The marketplace is about transactions, and capitalism is built on the principles of dystopia, yet it can create a veritable utopia, by having everyone appeal to their own self-interest (short of theft (of property) or physical harm (of your body)). Greed ensures that people like money, much more than they care for racism, sexism, or personal vendettas. If they can ship a couple more units, making more money in the process, they quickly set aside whatever personal problems they have with you.

--
I am John Hurt.

Re:Does this mean memory prices will fall? by The+Clockwork+Troll · 2004-09-15 09:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, in fact now the high prices are legitimized because they all need to pay restitution and legal bills.

--

There are no karma whores, only moderation johns

And who benefits from this? by what_the_frell · 2004-09-15 09:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

You can bet your cash-starved wallet it'll be the corporations DELL that will receive the compensation/benefit, and keep the RAM pricing the same for the consumers so they can continue to recoup their losses .

My Head Just Exploded by mattgarnsey · 2004-09-15 09:07 · Score: 5, Funny

From the article (condensed for brevity):

Infineon Technologies announced today that it has plead guilty to a single and limited charge related to the violation of US antitrust laws in connection with the pricing in its Dynamic Random Access Memory.

Infineon strongly condemns any attempt to fix or stabilize prices. Infineon is committed to vigorous and fair competition based solely on superior products and services.

It really shocks other libertarians when.... by ShatteredDream · 2004-09-15 09:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

People like myself, who are more classical liberals than libertarians, apply Lord Acton's famous expression "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" to economics. The more wealth that is centralized in faceless organizations, the more power they have. Yet, the wealth is not to be measured in just how much cash they have, but by the position they enjoy which can be worth more than their bank accounts.

Anti-trust laws are nothing more than a way to provide a check on corporate power. They exist to keep companies, especially big corporations, from becoming in Locke's words "a law unto themselves."

Anyone who calls themself a libertarian, opposes antitrust laws and has a sympathetic view of the south in the civil war would do well to read some of the founders of the CSA's opinions on monied corporations. The short summary is that they considered them to be a plague on basic liberties and the free market and were fighting more against the corporations who saught the tariff which taxed the southern economy terribly and used the money to line the pockets of corporations, than it was for "states' rights." The major state's right was to "be free from being sucked dry by monied corporations."

I will say this about monopolies. The government creates many of these headaches that it has to later solve by having expansive IP laws which allow patent holders to rape and pillage innovators. Would someone please tell me why we can patent online shopping carts and file formats? How about business processes in general? What about things we have never even fully or at all implemented ourselves?

If the government were to be reconstituted on classical liberal values, most of these monopolies would die like vampires in the morning sunlight.

--
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!

FINALLY! by Silverlancer · 2004-09-15 09:08 · Score: 3, Informative

For the past 2-3 years, RAM prices haven't dropped--they've gone up. The RAM that I bought with my current computer costs MORE now than it did when I bought it a year ago, and not only that--its crap quality too! Its supposedly PC3700, but won't hit PC3700 speeds on stock timings even with extra voltage!

This is one of the few great examples where we get to love the American legal system ;)

Re:FINALLY! by tukkayoot · 2004-09-15 09:14 · Score: 2, Informative

I doubt you'll see any change, as the article mentions that the price fixing was limited to certain OEMs between 1999 to 2002.

Still. by ShizCakes · 2004-09-15 09:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

This fine may be huge, but will we see a benefit from it? Probably not.

Conflict of Interest by jmulvey · 2004-09-15 09:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Infineon has agreed to pay a $160m fine to the US government"

Once again, the companies profit and the US government gets cash... and joe six-pack gets screwed. I mean, with the government receiving all these settlements from Microsoft and the tobacco companies... why aren't our taxes going down?

The US government has more than a bit of conflict of interest in its role as protector of the public from price-fixing and monopolies, yet recipient of huge settlements when they are allowed to grow and blossom.

I'm sure Infineon, a company that has annual GROSS PROFITS of over $2 BILLION USD a year made a hell of a lot more that $160m. So Infineon makes out, and the government makes out.

But where's my money? You remember me, the guy that got ripped off?

Re:Conflict of Interest by jale37 · 2004-09-15 12:16 · Score: 2, Informative
The fines all go into a fund that goes to all victim's of crime. Contrary to popular belief, the DOJ does not collect any of the funds. Under the Victim's of Crime Act of 1984, here's where the money goes:
- Crisis intervention.
- Emergency shelter.
- Emergency transportation.
- Counseling.
- Criminal justice advocacy.
Victim's of Crime Act of 1984
Title 42 USC Section 10601 establishes the Crime Victim's Fund

"There shall be deposited in the fund ALL fines collected from the person's convicted of offenses against the state"

This applies to cases that are settled as well. As you can see, we all benefit indirectly.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts /vocacvf/fs_vocacvf.html

Re:Does this mean memory prices will fall? by mr_spatula · 2004-09-15 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure. Just like CD prices fell after the CD price fixing settlemet... oh, wait...

Then I guess this will be like my rates with progressive going lower after they had the class action law suit over adjusting rates based on credit... oh, wait... that didn't happen either.

The only peopel to benefit from this will be the lawyers and the major companies - the rest of us will be lucky to get a coupon for a dollar off.

Sounds to me like Crucialcould do this cheaper by IronChefMorimoto · 2004-09-15 09:10 · Score: 2, Funny

They paid over $150 million for fixing RAM prices? [wink wink]

Damn. I would've thought a Crucial.com web programmer or database technician could've done that pretty easily by having each stick of RAM on the website subtract, say, $20 - $30.

That's what? $22.50 for the hour spent making the change? Hell -- even cheaper if Crucial.com outsources its website/database operations to Bangalore.

IronChefMorimoto

No, That's Impossible by srwalter · 2004-09-15 09:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Every good slashdotter should realize that this is impossible. Theregister must just be trying to pull one over on us. I mean, clearly the Bush Administration is in the pocket of Corporations, and would never allow this to happen to big business. Obviously, the story is a farce.

--
Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4

Re:No, That's Impossible by HarveyBirdman · 2004-09-15 09:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

I know you are kidding, but it's a view held seriously by many over-politicized geeks. I had one at work last month whine about how all the "Enron guys got off scot-free". I pointed him to a web page detailing the indictments and convictions already handed down, along with exactly how complex the case was (hence the delay as cases were prepared), and a little mention of "innocent until proven guilty".
You should have seen the retarded idiot go through multiple waves of ideological panic in trying to fit the facts into his monochromatic world view. Truly a scary sight. He kept trying to filter and twist the information. A world where Bush was President and Enron executives got punished simply could not exist in his tiny, broken mind.
I used to think ideology was a mental illness, but these days I think it's just the may most people's brains are wired. It's going to take another 9 million years to evolve away. So, 9 million more years of total and complete fuckheadedness from the bulk of humanity, day in and day out.
C'moooon asteroid!

--
--- Ban humanity.
Re:No, That's Impossible by corngrower · 2004-09-15 10:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Micron Technology was mentioned. It is an American company based in Boise, Idaho.
Re:No, That's Impossible by drinkypoo · 2004-09-15 10:44 · Score: 2, Funny

That guy was a wanker. Everyone knows if you want credibility you have to complain about Halliburton. :)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Infineon Financial Stuff / Payments by webword · 2004-09-15 09:12 · Score: 3, Informative

Interestingly, there is a press release on this topic on the Infineon web site. Please note a discrepancy between what the Register says and what their press release says...

Register: "Infineon has agreed to pay a $160m fine to the US government for fixing the price of computer memory from 1999 to 2002, one of the biggest ever penalties imposed by the DoJ's Antitrust division."

Infineon: "The wrongdoing charged by the DoJ was limited to certain OEM customers. Infineon is already been in contact with these customers and has achieved or is in the process of achieving settlements with all of these OEM customers."

So, is the government getting the money or the OEMs. Note that either way, the trickle down to regular folks (i.e., you!) will take a long time.

p.s. I love this quote from the Infineon press release: "Infineon strongly condemns any attempt to fix or stabilize prices. Infineon is committed to vigorous and fair competition based solely on superior products and services."

Infineon 0, U.S. Department of Justice 1.

--
How to Download YouTube Videos

Re:Correct the %^&$# summary! by nuclear305 · 2004-09-15 09:12 · Score: 4, Informative

If you were to actually pay closer attention to TFA, You'd have noticed the related articles linked at the bottom. More specifically this

"The case centres on allegations that between the end of 2001 and mid-2002, Samsung, Hynix, Micron, Infineon and others covertly agreed to up prices. The alleged jump in prices followed a two-year slump in demand that drove most memory production lines into operating at a loss."

They may not have been named in the settlement, but they certainly have been named at one point or another.

And there's still Rambus to deal with by optimus2861 · 2004-09-15 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

The latest info I can find dates from around May, but Infineon is one of the DRAM makers facing a patent-infringement lawsuit from Rambus, and if that doesn't go well for them (Rambus had an initial setback but has been getting favourable rulings since; anyone who wants to cry "submarine patent!" better read up on the history, it's nowhere near that cut-and-dry) they could very well go under. I think they will lose it, and get hit with willful infringment for triple damages, which will easily run the damages into the billions. I doubt Infineon could absorb that.

Word dectives saw this case coming... by LostCluster · 2004-09-15 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

They just broke down the company name to Infineon...

Big cartel, this one? Pffft. by SenorCitizen · 2004-09-15 09:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you want a *big* international anti-trust case, just try sueing OPEC.

How are they any different?

Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. by Cecil · 2004-09-15 10:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Because they're a group of countries, not a business, and countries aren't subject to any sort of anti-trust law. They're free to do whatever they want with the their own resources, including gouging other countries. It's one of the wonderful rights you get by being a soverign country.

I realize that globalization is busy blurring the line between the two sets of entities, but at the moment businesses don't have militaries.

That's the real difference.

--
Random and weird software I've written.
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. by drinkypoo · 2004-09-15 10:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I realize that globalization is busy blurring the line between the two sets of entities, but at the moment businesses don't have militaries.

It's a good thing, too. However, that day is probably coming. I believe this much of the "dark future" scenarios that we find in the much-maligned (usually deservingly so) "cyberpunk" genre: Some governments are going to collapse. Some corporations are going to become sovereign powers. And it's going to go very, very badly. Hopefully it will only be a fad...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. by Cecil · 2004-09-15 10:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, being "out" of oil never really happens since current recovery technology only allows us to get about 20% (on average) of the existing oil out of the ground, but as far as oil production, yes, most of the domestic U.S. oil fields are either unviable fields (there's a break even point where it costs more to produce a barrel of oil than you get for selling it) or very mature (fields that have produced most of their recoverable oil, have therefore lost most of their pressure, and are only pumping a tiny fraction of what they were at their peak)

A lot of this is because the first oil well was drilled in the U.S. and the U.S. quickly became a leader in the process. It took about 40 years after that before oil was discovered in most of the middle east.

But yeah. I work in the oil and gas industry (aka Pure Evil Incorporated), and I don't have much sympathy for the anti-OPEC crowd either, because I think they're actually surprisingly reasonable. Sure, they're artificially keeping the price high (albeit still reasonable enough for people to buy it, apparently), but like you said, the alternative is much worse for them and for everyone. s/oil/(some endangered but useful-to-hunt animal)/ and the reason they act the way they do becomes more clear.

Besides, I know that if I was in their position, I'd be much less reasonable than they are about pricing and market demands, heh. ;)

--
Random and weird software I've written.
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. by cr0sh · 2004-09-15 11:47 · Score: 2, Informative

However, that day is probably coming.
Actually, that day has already been there, done that - look into the East India Company, circa 17th century. Basically a large "multinational" corporation with its own Navy and Army. More or less ruled India in the day, and controlled major trading routes (shipping). Its rule lasted for 200 years, until the British finally stepped up to the plate and dissolved the company.
History - learn it or repeat it. It happenned then, it could easily happen today (some might say it *is* happenning). Also, witness the rise of corporate military training and weapons systems suppliers, along with corporate mercenary squads (DeBeers, anyone?)...

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Re:Big cartel, this one? Pffft. by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-09-15 12:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Businesses don't have militaries?
Lets not forget about BlackwaterUSA which IS a business military, currently hired by our government.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Antitrust! by Exmet+Paff+Daxx · 2004-09-15 09:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Now let me state the present rules,"
The lawyer then went on,
"These very simple guidelines,
You can rely upon:
Your gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it's unfair competition if
You think you can charge less!
"A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion...
Don't try to charge the same amount,
That would be Collusion!
You must compete. But not too much,
For if you do you see,
Then the market would be yours -
And that's Monopoly!

- The Incredible Bread Machine

There are no rules, save "Don't Succeed". Gotta love America - they love capitalism, and someday they intend to give it a go.

--
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.

Re:Correct the %^&$# summary! by antifoidulus · 2004-09-15 09:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Um, not only did you not RTFA, but you don't seem to realize what the term, "price fixing" means. In a non-monopoly environment(like memory), if one company raises it's prices, it's not price fixing, it's capatilism. If the market doesn't like the higher memory prices, then nobody buys their stuff and either the prices drop or they do.
In this case though, it was a bunch of memory manufacturers who make up a very large chunk of the market colluding to keep prices high. This is kind of like a "Monopoly Voltron"->together they combine forces to become a virtual monopoly, even though they are seperate parts.

--
Monstar L

This is good for rambus.. by MasterDater · 2004-09-15 09:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Too bad they've already been pushed out of the PC ram business. Hey, shit happens, right?

The reason for this by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 2004-09-15 09:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

The real reason for this: Windows Longhorn is going to require an obscene amount of memory, so Microsoft's new bought-and-paid-for friends in the DOJ are making sure RAM chips are inexpensive.

--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!

Reasonable prices now? by Guspaz · 2004-09-15 09:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does this mean that companies like Dell (Any big computer company really) will stop charging five times more than retail for memory upgrades?

I tried to price it on Dell's site for notebooks. In retail, 2x256 is the same price as 1x512, more or less. (All prices that follow are Canadian)

Dell charges 200$ for the DIFFERENCE between them.

To upgrade from 2x256 to 2x512, they charge 600$. They should be charging about 150$. When I purchased a DDR333 512MB SODIMM, I paid 144$.

Now, even when using ultra-premium ram (Which they don't), there's a big difference between 144$ and 600$.

Why do we fine coporations and jail humans? by nlinecomputers · 2004-09-15 09:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

If I personally break the law I will probably be incarcerated for my crimes. Yet a corporation who's only job is to make more money then it spends simply pays a fine. If I am in jail I can't earn any money or perform any deeds outside of a very limited set of rules. Corporations shouldn't be fined. They should be forced to shutdown or even be disbanded.

--
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.

Re:OPEC? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-15 09:47 · Score: 3, Informative

The difference, my child, is that OPEC is an international entity with no "place of business" in the United States. As such, they have no need to obey U.S. Anti-trust laws in exactly the way the average U.S. citizen has no need of obeying the laws of the United Arab Emirates.

--AC

Fine line between "dumping" and fixing by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-09-15 09:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

So if you get together with the other RAM vendors to stabilise the market to keep it sustainable (like OPEC and many others do) then that's illegal price fixing.

If you sell at too low a prices then you're "dumping" and that's illegal too.

One law is there to protect the consumer and the other is there to protect other suppliers.

Unless companies can sustainably make profit from their silicon sales we're doomed to boom and bust cycles where we oscillate between RAM surpluses and RAM shortages. In the long run, we all lose if these companies cant stabilise and make reasonable profits.

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.

Re:Fine line between "dumping" and fixing by SpecBear · 2004-09-15 11:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't see how it's a fine line between dumping and fixing. They seem to be polar opposites. As I understand it:

Fixing: I get together with my competitors and we all agree to sell products at a certain price. Since we're no longer competing against each other, we can negate the downward pressure on prices (and thus profits) that usually results from a competitive market.

Dumping: If I happen to have a bunch of money, instead of cooperating with my competitors, I try to kill them off. I price my products below the cost to make them, ensuring that nobody can run a sustainable business in the market. Since I have a bunch of money, I can last longer than my competitors. Once they die off or move on, I have a monopoly and can jack up prices far above what a competitive market would support.

We all lose if these companies can't stabilize, but we all win if the companies that can't manage their freaking inventory die off and make room for companies that actually read their history and learn from it. Collusion won't end the boom/bust cycle. It'll just ensure that the consumer gets screwed on prices regardless of whether there's a shortage or a surplus.
Re:Fine line between "dumping" and fixing by bwd234 · 2004-09-15 13:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Dumping: If I happen to have a bunch of money, instead of cooperating with my competitors, I try to kill them off. I price my products below the cost to make them, ensuring that nobody can run a sustainable business in the market. Since I have a bunch of money, I can last longer than my competitors. Once they die off or move on, I have a monopoly and can jack up prices far above what a competitive market would support."

Um, isn't that exactly how WalMart works and I don't see them being fined or otherwise in trouble with the government.

Circuit complexity. by uberdave · 2004-09-15 10:35 · Score: 3, Informative

It's not so much the die size, but the circuit complexity. A memory chip is basically the same circuit duplicated several million times. A CPU has registers, ALUs, pipelines, control circuitry, and who knows what else. Memory chips are cheaper to design, and sell in greater quantities.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad

Re:Circuit complexity. by mkldev · 2004-09-15 14:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Not only cheaper to design, but much cheaper to fab. The technology for CPUs is currently at 90nm. RAM, by contrast, is moving from a 130nm to 110nm process this year, and there are talks of plans to move to 90nm next year. That means that by the time the DRAM vendors switch to a smaller process, the industry as a whole typically has had a whole year to work out the kinks for them.

--
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.

Re:China executes its white collar criminals... by orim · 2004-09-15 10:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I fully support this. All these execs/bankers/etc who are stealing money...

1) they are stealing from somebody, everybody

2) people usually work for their money. while some of us are lucky to to enjoy our jobs, we still *have to* work to be able to eat. we spend a good portion of our life working.

3) somebody steals our money, they've just stolen our time, which in sufficient quantities could equal working our entire lifetime.

4) when they've just stolen enough money to equal the national average salary * national average working lifespan, they've stolen a life. That's when we execute the bastards.
(in 2002, that was $33,252.09 * 40years = works out to about $1.3 million)
I'd propose making them work it off, but keeping people in prison costs us money vs. making us money.

I think we should have more than a few executions for this shit in the US. It's about time.

--
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty

They made billions, fined a few million. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-15 11:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sure they learned their lesson: keep doing it.

The old sinclair spectrum by blackest_k · 2004-09-15 11:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

just for historys sake the spectrum was designed with 32 k ram chips which were actually failed 64k ram chips I think a jumper decided if the top half was good or the lower. in later times the spectrum got working 64k ram chips still for use as 32k.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

RAM prices are fluctuating wildly by Cryogenes · 2004-09-15 11:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

and there are at least a dozen competing vendors. When they charge low, they get hit for dumping, when they charge high they get hit for fixing.

Or is it the US extorting money from foreign companies because they can? Does it also happen the other way round? (And don't give MS vs. EU as an example, MS hasn't paid a penny yet and probably never will).

I only have one question... by ZeroOne42 · 2004-09-15 13:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Where does the US$160 million go? Who gets it? Do the people around the world who bought overpriced RAM get a cut out of it?

no shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-15 13:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

this article is a crock of shit, and the doj has taken a bribe.

the articles say that price fixin only occured from 99 to 02? look at the scoreboard budda. ram has ALWAYS been very expensive. it's made out of fuckin sand! there is no real cost with a low yeild...you just make more of it.
then there was the mysterious ram factory fire that got hushed up early reports indicated that there was no equipment found after the fire. what could that imply.

on top of this, infineon set aside 300 million for the fines, and was only fined half? could they be more obvious.

lets be realistic here. the doj only reacted because tons of people knew they were being ripped off--kinda like with M$. antitrust exists in nearly all walks of american consumerism. doj should read deparment of jokes. oil is a huge scam, electricity is screamin me too! remember when power was oing to be too cheap to meter? but the biggest scam has to be the auto industry. after almost a century of assembly lines the price of automobiles still continue to rise faster than inflation.
americans should wake up and smell the coffee... no wait, they just had a huge worldwide price hike too. its no small news that dairy, wheat board/cartels were invented in the us. what the american people should do is sue, and imprison the entire department of justice for not doing anything at the very least, and more likely, taking bribes and allowing this kind of thing to take over corporate america.

Re:Problem is production methods... by grainofsand · 2004-09-15 14:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

But why hasn't the futures market been able to smooth these fluctuations as it has for almost every other conceivable product on earth?

--
A dream is good. A plan is better.

Who gets the 160 Million? by rspress · 2004-09-15 16:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

How about the people who ponied up the dollars to buy it! I bought RAM from crucial.com a division of Micron. Shouldn't I get some dollars back?

Re:Definitions by Hockney+Twang · 2004-09-16 00:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Collusion: You and everyone else agree to charge the same price, eliminating that pesky "competition."

Dumping: You sell at a loss, driving competitors who cannot afford that kind of loss out of business, then you jack up your price and recoup when you're the only shop in town.

Price fixing: See collusion, except that everyone has agreed to keep raising their price.

And it's not like these corporations are "starving artists" or anything. They're making big bucks in this horribly hostile market, where antitrust laws obviously make it impossible to do business. Right?

Slashdot Mirror

Infineon To Pay $160 Million For Fixing RAM Prices

97 of 356 comments (clear)